Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:31:46 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mark H. Wood" <> | Subject | Re: PATCH for NET=n |
| |
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Philip Blundell wrote:
> In message <Pine.OSF.3.95.971223112335.15177A-200000@namu23>, "Martin.Dalecki" > writes: > >1. Unix sockets are NOT only networking but a general IPC mechanism > >instead. They don4t depend on networking code. If you are not connected to > >the net it should remain possible to specify CONFIG_NET=n and CONFIG_UNIX. > >There is no need for TCP/IP at friends on an box without any kind of > >networking connection. Nothing depends really on TCP/IP (Even X11 > >doesn4t!). > > That's not correct. CONFIG_INET controls whether to include TCP/IP support; > you can have Unix sockets without this. CONFIG_NET is the next level up and > it's reasonable to require this for _anything_ that uses sockets.
So, what we're saying here is that CONFIG_NET maybe should have been called CONFIG_SOCKET instead. Unix-domain sockets are arguably not networking, but networking is only a subset of the uses of the Berkeley socket model. Hmmm.... -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu Legacy system: installed before the speaker arrived; therefore outdated, despised, to be replaced ASAP.
| |